tomcooper2323 said:

This seems like a goofy list. And with Prince's estate up in the air, it's not getting paid that much.

And who is "Elizabeth Page"? Maybe Betty Page the pinup girl, but still don't think she would be that high on the list.

It is called royatlies. His estate will be getting royalties as long as the estate has the rights to the publishing and the masters.

Good lord where do you think the money goes when someone streams a song or buys a song. To the great mystery bank in the sky.

As always it's always more profitable when an artist is dead and the suits don't have the bothersome task of dealing a living human being with thoughts and opinions.

MotownSubdivision said:

Some people in this topic seem to be implying that being within the Top 10 of a long list like this somehow a bad thing. Who cares where MJ, Elvis and Tom Petty are ranked? Just be happy Prince is in the Top 10 at all. Shoot, it really shouldn't matter anyway.

It is a good thing but some people on this board love to spew shit on him even in death.

Oh and Asfin's book was #15 on the New York Times Bestseller list this week. There is interest in Prince and this kills some people on this board.

So despite all the criticism heaped on the estate, Prince still out-earned David Bowie.

The same people that manage the Presley estate are managing Paisley Park.

RodeoSchro said:

So despite all the criticism heaped on the estate, Prince still out-earned David Bowie.

The same people that manage the Presley estate are managing Paisley Park.

Because many of these people complaining are bring some emotional or racial crap into it instead of business sense.

FullLipsDotNose said:

He didn't make as many tracks as Prince, he hardly ever wrote music (as opposed to Prince) and he could only sing and play the guitar (again, Prince beat him easily at this).

You're forgetting Elvis is a brand like Marilyn Monroe, The Beatles, James Dean, Shirley Temple, John Wayne, KISS, Lucille Ball, etc. It's not just selling music. There's Elvis telephones, dolls, clocks, Monopoly games, the Elvis Lives! tours where a band plays to Elvis concert video footage with isolated vocals, Viva Elvis, remixed CDs, etc. He has over 30 movies that are still shown on TV and can be bought on DVD/Blu Ray. All of these things generate money. Elvis didn't write music, but Colonel Parker generally had it set up that either Elvis was added to the writing credits or give up part of the publishing to Elvis company if songwriters wanted him to record their songs. Dolly Parton was one that refused to do this, so Parker didn't allow Elvis to record her songs. So Elvis did get songwriting royalties. Playing instruments has nothing to do with record sales or popularity. The general public don't care about that. There's big crowds that go to concerts by DJs like Skrillex who basically just push buttons and has a light show. So I don't get your point there.

FullLipsDotNose said:

TheBigBang said:

I don't know why you would LOL @ Elvis. Dude's been dead for decades, and is still raking in the cash. Clearly, whoever is in charge of his estate knows what the fuck they're doing.

He didn't make as many tracks as Prince, he hardly ever wrote music (as opposed to Prince) and he could only sing and play the guitar (again, Prince beat him easily at this).

I'm not saying Elvis wasn't above average though.

well it's not a list of who deserves to be there.

MJ was more popular in life, so in death likewise. He was a commercial artist, he banged on about sales himself all the time (classy guy).

McDonalds quarter pounders sell more than fillet steak-quality has little if not the opposite to the consumption of it

FullLipsDotNose said:

fakir said:

#7 showing up always...

Humm

.

EmmaMcG said:

Polo1026 said:

AnnaSantana said:

jcurley said:

McDonalds quarter pounders sell more than fillet steak-quality has little if not the opposite to the consumption of it

I would guess more people buy McDonald's because it's lower in cost, like a regular grocery store is usually cheaper than Whole Foods. That's not really the same thing as buying music. Records are generally the same price in the same store, unless it's on sale or a cutout. A record by one act is not cheaper than another.

MickyDolenz said:

NorthC said:

When it comes to music, "quality" is all a matter of taste. We're among Prince fans here of course, so most of us appreciate his music more that Elvis Presley's music, but that doesn't make Prince's music better quality.

I disagree. Sure, when you ask people who they like more, it's their taste in music. Some like MJ more, some like Elvis more and some like Prince more. But I think quality isn't a matter of taste. To some degree maybe, but some people study music and if you study music, quality includes things as complexy.

Creep from Radio Head is a complex song, if you compare it to, let's say Billy Jean, or Jailhouse Rock. I think most people would say: "Billy Jean is better, or Jailhouse Rock is better." But that's their taste.

If some people would look at different songs without their personal taste in the way, they'd know that quality is much more than popularity.

Prince gained popularity with Purple Rain, and that's a really good Album. Rolling Stone even put it on rank 2 in their list of the 80's 100 best Albums. But is it really his greatest Album? Parade, Sign O' The Times didn't match PR's sales, but if you look at the quality of the Songs, you got two Albums that would technically be better than PR.

Christal Ball is another example. Yes, MJ and Elvis are more popular than Prince. But some of his songs were qualitative better than some Elvis or MJ Songs. Prince had many complex songs with profundity.

I'm a music nerd, so I don't only look on the popularity of the songs or albums, because if we'd go by that, Justin Bieber would be the new MJ. Because he's almost as popular as him, but he doesn't reach MJ's level. And you know why? Because his music doesn't have MJ's quality. Usher ain't no Quincy Jones, he can't produce a Song like Billie Jean. That song is timeless, you just never get bored of it. Oh and while we're on the subject, I think that Off the Wall is MJ's best Album ever, if you'd look at the quality of the songs. Thriller is the biggest selling album of all time, but I'd put it under Off the Wall. Off the Wall didn't need a Video like Thriller to sell the main single. While Thriller is a simple Song with no depth at all. But enough to reach the mainstream.

You can argue who's music is better, but if we would honestly look at the quality of the songs, you'd see that SOME Prince songs are better than some MJ and Elvis Songs.

Why do you think no one reached Mozart by now? Because there's no one who creates music that reaches this quality. Quality exists in Music and it doesn't have to do with the taste of people.

jcurley said:

MickyDolenz said:

I would guess more people buy McDonald's because it's lower in cost, like a regular grocery store is usually cheaper than Whole Foods. That's not really the same thing as buying music. Records are generally the same price in the same store, unless it's on sale or a cutout. A record by one act is not cheaper than another.

I was talking quality. My analogy was fine. Bad quality is usually easier to digest so my analogy was perfect in comparing how people consume. Nothing to do with meat or music. If anything you should have accused me if being an intellectual snib

That's not true musically or gastronomically.

[Edited 11/13/17 15:06pm]

jcurley said:

I was talking quality. My analogy was fine. Bad quality is usually easier to digest so my analogy was perfect in comparing how people consume. Nothing to do with meat or music. If anything you should have accused me if being an intellectual snob

You mentioned meat. A lot of people can't afford steak and some can't chew it. McDonald's is cheap and it has things for kids like Happy Meals and some have a playground. I've never seen a steakhouse with a playground. Two albums are the same price. So a price factor is not there like McDonald's & steak. It's like comparing Wal-Mart & Neiman Marcus. Most people can't afford Neiman Marcus. Also just because you like steak does not mean it is better than McDonald's. That's your opinion, just like the idea of one singer's music is better "quality" than another.

MickyDolenz said:

jcurley said:

I was talking quality. My analogy was fine. Bad quality is usually easier to digest so my analogy was perfect in comparing how people consume. Nothing to do with meat or music. If anything you should have accused me if being an intellectual snob

You mentioned meat. A lot of people can't afford steak and some can't chew it. McDonald's is cheap and it has things for kids like Happy Meals and some have a playground. I've never seen a steakhouse with a playground. Two albums are the same price. So a price factor is not there like McDonald's & steak. It's like comparing Wal-Mart & Neiman Marcus. Most people can't afford Neiman Marcus. Also just because you like steak does not mean it is better than McDonald's. That's your opinion, just like the idea of one singer's music is better "quality" than another.

.

Just a 'thank you' to Micky for adding some common sense to this thread.

MickyDolenz said:

NorthC said:

It's an interesting question... Whether it's food, music, books... Is "quality" defined only by personal taste or are there objective criteria? Who decides what is art and what is kitsch?

It's all basically someone's opinion. One movie critic can praise a movie while another dislikes it (ig. Siskel & Ebert). Like some audiophiles who think the more a piece of stereo equipment costs, the better it is. So that results in $800 speaker wire/connection cables or turntables that cost more than $100,000.

MickyDolenz said:

FullLipsDotNose said:

1. Michael Jackson

2. Arnold Palmer

3. Charles Schulz

4. Elvis Presley

5. Robert Marley

6. Thomas Petty

7. Prince

8. Dr. Seuss

9. John Lennon

10. Albert Einstein

11. David Bowie

12. Elizabeth Taylor

13. Elizabeth Page

LOL @ #6 and #4 - I thought Prince could beat them easily...

Sure glad you posted this,,hhhmmm... P at #7,

FullLipsDotNose said:

TheBigBang said:

I don't know why you would LOL @ Elvis. Dude's been dead for decades, and is still raking in the cash. Clearly, whoever is in charge of his estate knows what the fuck they're doing.

He didn't make as many tracks as Prince, he hardly ever wrote music (as opposed to Prince) and he could only sing and play the guitar (again, Prince beat him easily at this).

I'm not saying Elvis wasn't above average though.

Yep. I hear ya. And I think SOP and Xhaltation will cause his Earnings to increase in the next year!

They have P's at $18 Million

Forbes Methodology:

Our list measures pretax income from October 15, 2016 through October 15, 2017 before deducting

cuts for agents, managers.

Seems strange how would dead folks be having agents and managers??? heehee

MJ at $75 Million , Wow in 1 year

NorthC said:

Oh yes! I bought a €1000 record player because I could afford it a few years ago and I'm loving my LPs... So that's the techical aspect of it. Now to the critical aspect... Sergio Leone is my favourite movie director. Critics were divided over his movies in the 1960s, but now, films like Once Upon a Time In the West and The Good, The Bad and The Ugly are regarded as classics... So what am I saying here? That what is "quality" will eventually find an audience... Whether it's movie buffs of music fans...

Did you get the $4,700.00 Shunyata cables with that?

So, will Prince's PR Deluxe be the highest selling album or at least the highest selling motion picture soundtrack of the year?

Taylor Swift's 'Reputation' Sold 1.05M Copies in First Four Days in US, Now 2017's Top Selling Album
11/14/2017 by Keith Caulfield Billboard

'Reputation' has already outsold 2017's previous top-seller, Ed Sheeran's "Divide."

Taylor Swift’s Reputation album sold 1.05 million copies in the U.S. over its first four days of release, according to initial sales reports to Nielsen Music. It’s the first album to sell a million copies in a tracking week in nearly two years, since Adele’s 25 sold 1.16 million copies in the frame ending Dec. 25, 2015 (the album’s fifth week on sale).

Reputation was released on Friday, Nov. 10, through Big Machine Records. It is Swift’s sixth studio album.

Reputation is now Swift’s fourth album to log a million-selling week. It follows her last three studio efforts, which all saw million-selling opening frames: 1989 (1.29 million in 2014), Red (1.21 million, 2012) and Speak Now (1.05 million, 2010). Swift is now the only act to have four million-selling weeks, since Nielsen Music began electronically tracking music sales in 1991. (Adele has tallied three million-selling weeks, but all with the same album: 25.)

Notably, since 2012, the only acts to sell a million copies of any album in a week have been Swift and Adele. Swift did it with Reputation, 1989 and Red. Adele's 25 bowed with 3.38 million, then sold 1.11 million in its second week and then 1.16 million in its fifth frame.

Industry sources forecast that Reputation is on track to earn Swift her largest sales week yet. Its debut week could surpass her current high-water mark, logged when 1989 launched with 1.29 million sold in its first seven days.

In addition, in just four days, Reputation is now 2017’s biggest-selling album in the U.S. It has surpassed the sales of the previous largest seller, Ed Sheeran’s ÷, which has sold 919,000 through the week ending Nov. 9. (Coincidentally, Sheeran is also featured on Reputation, as a guest artist on the song “End Game.”)

Reputation is set to debut at No. 1 on the Billboard 200 albums chart dated Dec. 2. If it arrives at No. 1, it will mark Swift’s fifth leader, following 1989, Red, Speak Now and Fearless (2008). The top 10 of the Dec. 2 Billboard 200 chart is scheduled to be announced on Sunday, Nov. 19.